Unlocking Real Value Blog

Advisors and the Fiduciary Standard (and Other Things on Their Minds) - July 12th, 2010

A survey of financial advisors in Today’ FundFire, entitled Falling Comp, Poor, Management Rattle Advisors, yielded some interesting results. The headline and initial focus of the article is concern over reduced compensation and the feeling by advisors that their companies were being poorly managed. Given that the majority of the respondents were from wirehouses, neither concern is surprising.

It’s also not surprising that wirehouse advisors felt that management was too concerned with the bottom line at the expense of investing in the future growth of the business. I have blogged previously my thoughts on how cuts in sales assistants, for example, were short-sighted.

But what I found to be the most interesting part of the survey was near the bottom of the article. Only 10% of the respondents, when asked what the greatest challenge facing the industry was, answered the fiduciary standard and other regulatory reform. This is both surprising and not surprising.

This low percentage is surprising given the large amount of attention regulatory reform has been getting in the press. Perhaps many of the respondents were 1) focusing on the fact that the currently proposed regulation is not too negative for broker/dealers overall; and 2) that the fiduciary standard is not currently part of the regulation unless a six month study by the SEC results in some further action (perhaps this also reflects the fact that not many people have confidence that the SEC will actually do anything!).

Why the results were not surprising to me is that many Advisors at wirehouses feel that even though they are not currently held to the fiduciary standard, they themselves do act like fiduciaries, and therefore even if the standard becomes law, it will not significantly affect them or their personal business. My guess is that they also feel that the broker/dealers themselves will have to make the majority of the adjustments. This view is naive, however, because if the standard were mandated, it would affect the products most advisors would be able to sell (as revenue-sharing would disappear), and it would greatly affect how broker/dealers are run in general. There would most definitely be a trickle down effect onto individual advisors.

Perhaps management of the wirehouses should spend some time over the next six months (assuming the legislation is passed) educating their advisors on the issue so that they can become advocates for their companies and their position on the issue. The odds still favor no fiduciary standard for broker/dealers in the foreseeable future; but why take the chance?

Creating a Compelling Client Experience - July 8th, 2010

I’ve just finished a new White Paper entitled Creating a Compelling Client Experience, which was part of our third quarter Unlocking Real Value eNewsletter.

Given what has gone on in the markets over the past few months, many people are saying to themselves “Oh No, Not Again!” Personally, I think the odds of a double-dip recession have increased, as it has become evident that the economy is still struggling.

Yesterday’s market rally not withstanding, I think we are in for some rough times in the short-term. Let me emphasize short-term. As I have been saying for the past two years, the answer to the “Oh No…” is “This Too Shall Pass.”

Regardless of what happens this quarter, or next quarter, we are all in business for the long-term. And the challenge is to continually distinguish ourselves in our businesses. That’s the goal of the White Paper – it presents ideas for creating a client experience that will distinguish you from the competition – in any market environment.

Enjoy the paper and please let me know what you think.

What Have You Done For Me Lately? - July 6th, 2010

What Have You Done For Me Lately? Articulating your value as a financial advisor is more complex after two years of market turmoil. And more necessary. By Marie Swift – Printed July 1, 2010 in Financial Planning Magazine.

Almost two years have passed since the financial markets cratered in 2008. You may have been shaken, but if you’re reading this, you survived. Your clients regained at least part of their losses. They may have learned a few tough lessons about risk, trust and patience. And they appreciate you for holding their hands through the worst. They’ll be your clients forever. Or will they?

Do your clients understand the true value of what you do? It’s an important question, especially now that volatility appears to have returned to the markets. Are you sure your clients aren’t wondering why they’re paying you a percentage of their assets-and losing money? Again? Is losing less than the S&P a sufficient measure of your worth?

The clients are restless. Client service and retention are still Job One. Your best defense may be to make sure that you’re articulating the value of the various services you perform.

“No doubt about it, 2010 will be characterized by the word change-clients seeking new advisors, advisors seeking new homes and mergers among firms that recognize that they can’t go it alone any longer,” says Andrew Klausner, founder and principal of AK Advisory Partners, a brand creation and marketing firm in Boston. “The common denominator among these trends, and the need we see, is that to be successful, advisors must clearly articulate their differentiating characteristics-their brand. Merged firms need to articulate the benefits of their new organization, and advisors who have switched firms need to convince clients to move with them.”

QUIETLY DISCONTENTED

“There are lots of underserved clients,” says Chip Roame, founder and managing partner of Tiburon Strategic Advisors in Tiburon, Calif. “And while they may have been unhappy for a while, they were probably unwilling to move until now, because they were too scared. In addition, clients are aging, so we are going to see some account consolidation.”

Tiburon’s research shows that traditional full-service brokerage firms and banks are losing market share to independent advisors and, gulp, discount brokers. But contrary to popular assertions, he says, clients are not leaving wirehouses and banks en masse and running to independents.

One reason: It is easier and more tempting than ever for clients to go it alone. There is a wealth of information online via discount brokers (such as Vanguard, E*Trade and Schwab) and specialty online services (such as Financial Engines, Smart 401(k), Balanced Zone Investing and Folio Investing).

“Now that people have recovered from 18 months of seemingly endless bad news, they may be looking at you and the value you provide,” Roame says. “Clients now have a year’s worth of data to evaluate their advisors on how they reacted to the financial crisis and whether what they are doing for them is working. Investment management and advisory firms that have lost significant assets have had a year to see if they have been able to successfully adapt, operationally and strategically.”

SIMPLE COMMUNICATION

“The crisis was one of those near-death experiences,” says Bob Veres, publisher of Inside Information. “The best advisors have been quick to communicate to their clients things like, ‘I’m going to be here worrying for you,’ and ‘I’ll see you through.’ They have built closer personal relationships,” Veres says.

The most important service the client needs? According to Veres, it’s hand-holding: “Someone who’s adaptable enough to help with personal life planning issues and put together a well-organized portfolio, who’s a good communicator, who can help them understand what insurance to buy. Someone with deep knowledge who can quarterback the entire process.” But clients have to recognize this multifaceted expertise-which means you have to make it part of everything you do.

Sue Stevens, founder of Stevens Wealth Management in Deerfield, Ill., and author of Put Your Money Where Your Heart Is, agrees with Veres. “At the end of the day, clients are looking for peace of mind,” she says. “It’s especially true when there’s a lot of volatility and uncertainty. Anything we can do as advisors to keep things calm is valued.”

She continues, “So we are very clear in laying out expectations. We’ve boiled our investment policy statements down to two pages; they are plain English and simple to understand. We update them every year and talk about them so that people know what to expect. Then if the market is volatile, we can say, ‘Look, we’re still within the parameters you were comfortable with,’ and generally that helps.”

Stevens also puts a lot of emphasis on deep diversification. She builds portfolios with 18 different asset classes; each one has a purpose in the portfolio. She goes through that individually, with each client, in the annual review. She also writes a monthly newsletter called Radiant Wealth.

“Stepped-up communications help clients understand what they are getting-the goal being peace of mind,” Stevens says. The firm recently upgraded its website, adding a client vault-something that’s become more important for today’s mobile clients. “It’s part of our value proposition when we talk to prospective clients,” says Stevens, who also rolled out two new tools last year: The Financial Bridge Binder, which helps clients organize their important information and documents, and a Personal Score Card, a life goal report card of sorts.

“It’s amazing how a simple tool can reassure people,” Stevens observes. “We try to make everything as visual as possible because a lot of people respond to that. They like colorful communications, they like simplicity and there’s a lot of giggling when I tell them this is their report card. So I think it adds a little bit of lightness to everything.”

DEMONSTRATING INTEGRITY, BUILDING TRUST

Client retention may boil down to building trust, but the worst way to get anyone’s trust is to demand it directly. “The more you tell people, ‘Trust me,’ the more they won’t,” says Mark Tibergien, CEO of Pershing Advisor Solutions in Jersey City, N.J.

Even if you’re completely honest, don’t expect that to come across as obvious. You have to show, not tell, that you’re aboveboard, Tibergien continues. “Demonstrate the control processes, showing that you provide protection for your clients. Are you using an independent custodian? Are you affiliated with a well-known broker-dealer? Explain to your client whose interests are being served and how you’re compensated.”

Beyond your honesty, Tibergien adds, is the issue of your competence. You need to get across your expertise, not only the training that helped you become a financial advisor but also what you do for continuing education.

“My recommendation is a Rights and Responsibilities Manifesto,” Tibergien says. “This is a document you hand to clients, which explains both the expectations they should have about your performance and the responsibilities they have to meet.”

Stevens demonstrated her commitment to a transparent practice by writing a piece to her clients that described the rigors involved in completing the firm’s annual compliance review. “I talked about how the process helps us be better advisors. I also mentioned that the SEC will be checking independently with the custodian and possibly with our clients to make sure that the balances all tie up. It’s unnerving for the client to get a call from the SEC. The right thing to do is tell the client, ‘The SEC has a new rule, and you may hear from them. That doesn’t mean anything’s wrong, it just means they are trying to be more diligent.’ I try to communicate any time I can set expectations.”

BEYOND THE GOOD TALK

Of course, trust is not only about how you communicate-although that’s certainly important. Scandal has tarnished so many distinguished Wall Street names that branding has become problematical; why not go with advice from some blog or a financial news show, since you aren’t going to get a fair shake from the big guys anyway?

It’s actually a fair question, and one an advisor should be prepared to answer. Financial advisors can provide what websites, news shows and Suze Orman can’t: customized wisdom. According to Blaine Aikin, CEO of fiduciary training center fi360, “Professional advice, the kind people value enough to pay for, cannot be commoditized. Advice is personal. It requires a relationship of implicit trust.” For him, problems begin when advice becomes intermingled with product sales, muddying the waters of what exactly advisors are offering.

Today advisors have to work harder than ever to show they are competent professionals and not just salespeople. “Competence is best demonstrated by professional designations and newsworthy accomplishments in the field, such as published works, public speaking experience and professional awards,” Aiken says. “Good judgment is evidenced by a compelling depiction of the processes the advisor uses to develop sound recommendations and by impeccable references to attest to the efficacy of these processes.”

REINVENTING YOURSELF

With all the changes in the way the public is approaching financial advice, smart advisors have not been standing still. They’ve been working to grow and change with the new environment. “They are not so much reinventing themselves as continually improving,” Tibergien says. “These intellectually curious advisors ask themselves, ‘How can I better serve my clients?'” They display high integrity mixed with humility.

They also have a sense of history. Many of them have been in this business for years and have seen many changes. Individual advisors are holding one another to higher standards. “Anyone who has been around this business has seen the quality of the craft improve,” Tibergien says.

This may be in line with what Aikin sees-an evolution of fiduciary status, often embraced by high-end RIAs. He sees two kinds of fiduciary advisors today: the true, or what he calls “avowed,” fiduciary and the “functional fiduciary”-the advisor who provides ancillary advice without formally accepting fiduciary status. This kind of advisor is generally associated with a broker-dealer or insurance company. He or she is technically operating under the fair dealing or suitability standard. In these situations, by statute, advice provided is incidental to the advisor’s product sales role.

It is with this kind of advisor-the functional fiduciary-that Aikin sees radical change, as regulators, professional associations and the investing public push all advisors to become more accountable. In addition to regulatory change, there has to be cultural change as companies make the shift from a sales culture to an investor culture that makes clients’ interests paramount.

Aikin is optimistic about the advisors, if not the companies themselves. “The functional fiduciaries in the field are tired of being depicted as greedy salespeople,” he says. Indeed, Aikin sees a significant migration of top representatives to the RIA world. “They see that the future of advice is fiduciary, and they don’t want to be the last to adapt.”

If Aikin sees the moves as a big external change, George Kinder, founder of The Kinder Institute of Life Planning in Littleton, Mass., sees them as result of internal changes too. He’s seen advisors think about how they can deepen their relationships, improve their skills and deliver what clients want. “These past years have led to a lot of soul searching,” Kinder says.

All of these thoughts, of course, lead back to a discussion of value. What are clients getting from their advisors? What do advisors expect their clients to get? And is it more a matter of reality or perception?

Tibergien says the answer comes from listening. “You have to define value in terms of outcome you agree upon at the start of the engagement,” he says. “Let’s say you have a client who comes to you worried about being able to afford to retire or pay a child’s college tuition. You can characterize your value in terms of filling those objectives. But if they say, ‘I’m concerned about independence’ and you’re just talking about financial return, you’re missing the message.”

Aikin believes investors have taken a major turn in how they approach money management. “The financial crisis opened investors’ eyes to the fact that prognosticators of performance are of questionable value in long-term investing and serious financial planning. Most people will recognize value when they see it.”

So what’s an advisor to do? Not run away from the uncertainty, but embrace it: Aikin believes advisors can offer a message that will resonate with investors if they say, “I can’t predict what the economy and markets are going to do, but I can give you certainty about the sound approach we are going to take in working together to meet your financial objectives.”

OPENING QUESTIONS

All of this-a sense of value, the issues of trust and the historical understanding of investor attitudes-leads to your first meeting with a prospect. You never get a second chance to make a first impression. So what can you ask your prospect in order to start on the right foot in today’s environment?

“Broad, open-ended questions show that you really care,” says Kinder, who suggests these two key queries: Is there any thing urgent you need to talk about? If we were to work together over a period of time, what would you like to have happen? Kinder also stresses that how you deliver these questions is important. “Don’t leap in with spreadsheets. Pause after each question and leave several moments for them to say something else. Ask if they’re sure they’re done.” Follow verbal cues. For example, if they then answer, “No, not really,” that means a lot more is coming.

Steve Saenz, managing partner of Advisor Solutions Network in Atlanta, says the purpose of opening questions is to try to understand prospects’ relationship with money. What does money mean: A yardstick of how they’re doing in life? Flexibility and freedom? Creating a legacy? “You have to get to that understanding,” Saenz says.”

ARTICULATING YOUR VALUE

So how do you get clear on your value? Peter Boland, senior director of marketing at BlackRock iShares explains it this way: “You may think your appeal is your investment philosophy or service offering, but it’s probably a human quality you don’t realize you have.”

To find the key to your differentiation, Boland suggests talking to your loyal clients a couple of times a week for a few weeks. “In time, you’ll start to pick up on their language, rather than your own-and that’s where you’ll find the keys,” he says.

Now look inward, Boland continues. “Ask yourself: ‘Why am I doing this? Why do I like it?’ The journey in your mind and your client’s is, ‘What do I stand for?’ What part of that resonates with clients? Then meld those together.”

Stevens says the biggest value advisors bring stems from their critical thinking. “The ability to keep a clear head and to think things through, that’s why a client hires us-because we can think critically in completely new situations.”

 Marie Swift is founder and president of Impact Communications in Leawood, Kan.

How to Think Smarter About Risk - June 29th, 2010

There was an interesing article in the WSJ recently entitled How to Think Smarter About Risk. Many of the ideas are worth thinking about and incorporating into your business if you are an advisor, although I have to admit that there were a few things in the article that I disagreed with.

The primary point of the article is that while many advisors consider how clients feel about risk and how they feel about the market overall (bullish v. bearish sentiment) when devising an asset allocation strategy, they often neglect to take into account the client’s human capital – their personal balance sheet.

Human capital is essentially a measure of future earnings. For example, if you work in the financial services industry, even if you are very optimistic about the market and willing to take a lot of risk, since your job might be at risk in another market downturn, this risk factor should be incorporated into your asset allocation (in essence resulting in a more conservative approach). The article contrasts this to a professor with tenure, where their job is relatively safe. Human capital can be quantified in terms of beta – is your beta higher or lower than the market? Thought of another way, are you more like a bond (risk-averse) or a stock?

I agree that human capital should be considered when an investor and their advisor devise an asset allocation. Part of the value-added of hiring an advisor is that he/she is able to incorporate the many facets of your life into your investment plan. A good advisor will take the time to really get to know clients and not simply base the investment plan on the answers to a 10-question risk assessment. I also agree with the article that decisions to buy insurance should also take human capital into account. The more stable the value of your human capital, the more insurance you should have to protect it, and vice versa.

One point that I don’t agree in the article, however, is its contention that high beta investors – investors whose human capital tends to fluctuate with the market and who should therefore be somewhat more conservative in their investments – should have little invested in the market during the first decade or two of their working lives, and more than conventional wisdom recommends during the later years. This idea, in my opinion, fails to take into account the powerful value of compounding. Factor your human capital in – yes – let it dictate your investing – no.

I also disagree with the authors take on education. The premise that the decision of what degree should be pursued should be intertwined with a eye toward hedging your long-term human capital seems somewhat cynical. If my son wants to pursue an undergraduate degree in history on his way to law school or whatever else he does, I for one am not going to try and dissuade him.

My conclusion is that while the article takes the issue of human capital a little too far for my tastes, the concept itself is important and advisors that integrate this issue into their fact finding and asset allocation decision-making are not only doing their clients a great service, but perhaps distancing themselves from the competition at the same time.

Financial Reform Surprise – the “F” Word’s Revenge! - June 25th, 2010

Like many others, I am surprised at the improbable win for the fiduciary standard announced yesterday – although, I think there is still too much uncertainty for anyone on either side to get too excited. What is certain is that the debate around this issue will continue for at least the next six months – if not longer.

The compromise reached in the financial reform bill almost certain to be passed next week is that the SEC will conduct a six-month study and have the power to decide at that point whether or not broker-dealers will be held to the same fiduciary standards under The Investment Advisor Act of 1940 as investment advisors are today. Advisors at broker-dealers are currently held to a less-stringent standard of suitability. Advocates of imposing the fiduciary standard on broker-dealers feel that it offers clients better protection, while the broker-dealer world is concerned over the costs of implementing and overseeing such a far-reaching change.

From an advisors point of view – the issue should be purely about semantics; I have always argued that advisors should hold themselves to the highest of standards regardless of where they work. It just makes good sense.

The ultimate outcome is far from certain, and there are some important carve-outs in the proposed legislation. For broker-dealers, the standard would only cover retail clients, not institutional clients; it also does not call for an on-going standard, of particular importance to discount brokers who offer do not have long-term relationships with clients (once intial advice is given).

Most importantly, however, is that the SEC does not have to act after the study; and given the SEC’s track record, it could very well be that this is a short-lived victory for those in favor of extending the standard to the broker-dealer world. Industry lobbyists are sure to be very busy over the next six months – so while even though many of us were surprised that the issue is living on at this point, the outcome is far from certain.

Keep watching!

Stop Putting the Squeeze on Investors - June 24th, 2010

There was an interesting article in the WSJ recently – Hey, Money Managers, Stop Putting the Squeeze on Investors – focusing on how while the stock market overall has done poorly over the past decade, the net margins of the 10 major publicly traded fund managment companies is still running at an astonishing 25.5%.

The author suggests that unless some changes are made, many investors may abandon the markets like they did in the 1930s and 1970s. He suggests that top money managers consider 1) cutting fees (only 175 out of 6,732 mutual funds have cut their fees so far in 2010 and only by an average of 0.07%; 2) help slash tax bills by investing more tax efficiently; 3) close when they get too big; 4) leave the herd mentally behind; and 5) be more upfront about not only how they performed, but how investors would have done had they done nothing – in other words – did the money manager really add value?

There are some important points here for investors and advisors. Fees should always be a consideration when investing and it is fair to question whether a particular manager, fund or fund family has reduced their fees. While there may be a legitimate reason why fees are where they are, it is incumbent upon the investor and advisor to determine those reasons. Part of the intial investment decision should take taxes into account – any advisor that has not done this is not doing clients any favors. Investors who invest on their own need to be aware of taxes – or perhaps they should consider getting some advice.

As managers or funds get larger, especially if they are investing in anything other than large-cap stocks, they should consider closing. Many managers and funds have closed in the past. In conducting due diligence, the question of when and if the manager or fund will close is definitely important. While the answer to one of these questions might not change your investment decision, taken as a whole, these questions, if answered in a way that does not add comfort, should make you think twice before making an investment.

One value of having an advisor or firm that conducts due diligence is to find a manager or fund that does not follow the herd, especially if it impacts their turnover as discussed in this article. Finally, managers and funds and their performance should be evaluated in multiple ways and no one should rely only on the manager or fund to tell you how they did.

The article raises valid points from a number of perspectives. Investment managers and fund companies should evaluate their policies in all of these areas and provide answers – not only when asked, but proactively. Advisors should outline their criteria for making investments to their clients, and all of these points are important ones to include. And investors should either develop their own due diligence methodologies to address these issues, or seriously consider working with an expert who can!

More Potential Bad News For The Wirehouses - June 21st, 2010

In FundFire’s recent survey of industry participants, the highest percentage of respondents indicated that they felt that revenue-sharing agreements – or the amount of money that fund companies pay to sponsors for promotion and support – were the most important determinant of whether or not a fund company gets on that sponsors platform. In other words – pay for play.

Investment philosophy came in as the second most popular answer, followed by the wholesaler’s relationship with the gate keepers. Why might this answer be bad for wirehouses?

The answer is that it indicates that the perception is that money speaks louder than anything; if true, this phenomenon hurts smaller mutual fund companies that don’t have the financial resources to compete. It would also limit client and advisor choice.

I say perception because while I agree this might have been the best answer a few years ago, I would agree with the management of wirehouses who would dispute this is still the case in today’s market. Especially following a large settlement a number of years ago against Edward Jones, the wirehouses have been reluctant to let revenue-sharing dictate their actions.

But since perception is reality, this type of issue, if publicized further, would be another black eye for the wirehouses. In the midst of the continued debate over the fiduciary standard, perceptions such as this become reality if used by RIAs and others who compete with the wirehouses; these competitors would argue that not only are wirehouse advisors not held to the fiduciary standard, but their firms limit their product offerings due to monetary issues, with the loser being the client.

My advice to the wirehouses is that this issue should be added to the list of perceptions that need to be proactively addressed head-on so that their advisors can compete.

Today, the financial services industry is losing the external public relations war (wall street v. main street). The wirehouses are losing the internal war to the independents. The war is far from over and the wirehouses will survive. But the sooner they start getting their case heard, the better off they will be.

Cutting Advisor Sales Assistants is Bad Business - June 17th, 2010

Published on June  17, 2010 – FUNDfire – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company- written by Andrew Klausner, Founder and Principal of AK Advisory Partners LLC.

The continuing cuts by wirehouses of sales assistant positions have an amplified effect on how advisors run their practices and how clients perceive these advisors.

What was a trademark downsizing move circa fall 2008 is unfortunately showing no signs of abating. This was most recently witnessed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s decision to cut sales assistants along with other support staff at the brokerage. An industry recruiter summed it up best by telling FundFirelast month that such cuts make it harder for advisors to be happy. “Sales support on the local branch level is very important…You will chip away at morale,” the observer remarked.

When firms eliminate the support sales assistants provide, the advisors must take time away from their most important business duties: client-facing activities and investment management. The cuts force advisors to take on tasks like processing trades, answering requests for account statements and other general administrative inquiries. In addition, these cuts also hurt the advisor’s ability to schedule client appointments that can build future business.

Consider, too, that the sales assistants at wirehouses today may be taking on other important duties, such as office receptionist work, due to previous support staff reductions. That means that it isn’t just the sales assistant’s work that may be piling up on the advisor’s desk.

The impact on client service quality is substantial. Remember that the more time advisors have to proactively call clients on investment issues, the better off their relationships are. If advisors must spend more time on administrative duties, they fall into a perpetual state of catch-up on client service matters. Their frustration increases while productivity decreases.

What makes the situation far more troubling is the fact that many advisors with sales assistants are not spending quality time with clients. Just look at the facts.

Wirehouse advisors reportedly spend only 27% of their time meeting with existing clients, according to a Cerulli Associates advisor time allocation study done in conjunction with the College for Financial Planning, the Financial Planning Association, IMCA and Morningstar. While this is more time than RIAs reported they spend with investors – about 22% – it is still much less time than most advisors would prefer. (Advisors actually say they have even less time to spend on investment management, which takes up 25% of wirehouse advisors’ time and 23% of RIAs’ time.)

Additionally, FA Insight research found that advisors spend just 50% of their time on client servicing, including meetings with existing clients and other revenue-generating events. Smaller practices tend to get hit harder in this regard.

The harsh truth for the wirehouses is clear. Their advisors are at risk of losing clients if they become spread too thin and also have less time to prospect for new business. While other types of firms have cut support levels, wirehouses especially can’t afford to neglect their primary producers while they also weather a large number of defections. And the argument that these brokerages are cutting back because of integration efforts following mergers shouldn’t apply to the sales assistants if we’re not seeing advisors being let go in the same proportions.

I understand that wirehouses must be bottom-line conscious in light of current economic conditions. However, I particularly question the continued cutting of sales assistant support. This may very well be one of the quickest ways to negatively impact an advisor’s business and alienate clients all at once.

A Merger With an Interesting Twist - June 11th, 2010

There was an interesting merger announced last week between a private equity firm (Northern Lights Ventures) and a firm (Echelon Capital Partners) which has primarily provided distribution services to boutique asset managers (they also provided small amounts of capital as well).

What caught my eye was this unique value proposition – investing in an asset management firm with a minority stake but then providing help on the sales and marketing side to help them grow. The idea makes perfect sense – proactively helping the firm with its marketing efforts without taking a majority role serves the purposes of both paries.

From an investment point of view, the new firm is helping grow its investment. And from the prospective of their partner firm, they receive help in areas where they may not be experts without having to give up control of the business.

I have thought for a long time that the asset management area would see a lot of mergers, particularly among small- and mid-size managers. I still believe this will be the case. But this latest deal adds an interesting twist into the types of mergers that we may see move forward.

I had concentrated on mergers that would help two firms become more operationally efficient, especially in light of reduced AUM as a result of the markets over the past few years. This latest deals broadens the spectrum of deals that may indirectly affect the money management industry.

The deal on its surface makes perfect sense. The proof will of course be in the execution of the strategy. But I think a lot of people will be watching the new firm to see if it is successful; if it is, it may be the first of a number of similar types of hook-ups that add an interesting business line to private equity firms.

A Preview – Final Negotiations on Financial Reform - June 7th, 2010

The next month or so will be filled with uncertainty for our industry as the House and Senate negotiate away the differences between their versions of financial reform. As usual, and in a rush to judgement, a false deadline of getting the bill on the President’s desk by July 4th has been set as the goal by Barney Frank. As I have commented before, it would be nice if for once the politicians would settle for getting it done right rather than getting it done quickly.

Nevertheless, a few things seems apparent – there will probably not be a fiduciary standard imposed on all advisors in the financial services industry (meaning that this particular debate will rage on indefinitely), and the final bill, though large and significant, will probably not be as bad as feared by many industry participants and not as far-reaching as the financial reform of the 1930s.

The profitability of banks is sure to be negatively impacted; by how much is uncertain at this point. But this bill does not signal the end for the banking industry – as in the past, banks (as many other businesses) will find new business lines to enter into to replace lost profits.

The four main areas of negotiation to keep your eyes on include 1) derivatives – will banks be required to spin-off their derivatives units as currently is in the Senate bill; 2) proprietary trading – will the “Volcker Rule” be part of the final bill – a rule which bars banks from making trading bets with their own capital or from owning hedge funds or private equity firms; 3) consumer protection – the House bill calls for a new independent consumer financial protection agency while the Senate has it housed within the federal reserve; and 4) too big too fail. The likely final bill will probably have a diluted derivatives restriction, a water-downed version of the “Volcker Rule,” an independent consumer credit agency and some sort of bank tax to protect against too big too fail.

Importantly, however, and oft looked in today’s debate, is the fact that nothing in either bill on the table right now makes it mandatory that future homeowners need at least 20% down to buy a new home. Absent a change in this, which does not seem likely, and regardless of any other positives in this bill, the door has been left open to future housing problems not dissimilar to the one of the recent past. In a rush to punish Wall Street and appeal to voters, have our elected officials left us vunerable to another financial crisis?